Share this story

The proprietor of one of the sleaziest "revenge porn" websites has gone public in a big way. The 28-year-old Colorado Springs man who created the site IsAnybodyDown, Craig Brittain, has been featured in a report airing on Denver TV station CBS4. Reporter Brian Maass also interviewed two women who were featured on the site against their will, and the station says it has been in contact with a half-dozen Colorado women in the same situation.

IsAnybodyDown posts revealing pictures, mostly of women, without their consent, along with their full names and identifying information like phone numbers and Facebook snapshots. If they want to get off the site, victims are directed to a takedown "service" that costs $250. The site is an even sleazier, and possibly more extortionate, version of Hunter Moore's famous site "IsAnybodyUp." (Moore's site has since gone dark, but he's hardly worse for the wear; he's even working on creating his own TV show.)

In the interview, Brittain said his site should just be considered "entertainment" and not extortion. He was also straightforward about his desire to turn the controversial business of "involuntary porn" into a big moneymaker. As for the Facebook information he solicits and posts, Brittain said he just wants readers to get a more holistic view of "who the women are and what they are about," according to the CBS report.

“We don’t want anyone shamed or hurt. We just want the pictures there for entertainment purposes and business," said Brittain, who said he makes $3,000 per month off the site. "I would say our business goal is to become big and profitable... We’re not out for revenge or being malicious. We just want entertainment, we want the money, we’re after making the buck."

Brittain also countered persistent allegations that the supposed "takedown lawyer" David Blade III, who will help women get off the site, doesn't exist. When the CBS reporter asked Brittain if he was actually Blade, Brittain said, “I’m not. Not true at all.”

That contradicts a forensic expert approached by CBS who looked at Blade's e-mails. The expert said that they were “likely sent not just from the same IP address, but from the same computer.”

When asked whether he thought what he was doing was "really sleazy," Brittain offered this: “We live in a really sleazy society.”

CBS4-Denver's interview with Brittain is scheduled to air at 10:00pm tonight, Colorado time. The station also plans to put the raw footage of Maass' nearly one-hour interview with Brittain online.

Will copyright be the tool that pummels IsAnybodyDown?

So-called "involuntary porn" sites are certainly pushing the legal boundaries of free speech—especially when they include thinly veiled attempts to wring money from the people portrayed. One question that springs to mind when hearing stories of those like the victims who spoke with Maass: since they took the photos themselves, couldn't copyright law be a tool for getting their content off the site?

Copyright law is intended to promote the production of more creative works; it isn't really meant for shutting down questionable activities like "revenge porn." And Marc Randazza, an attorney who's been out to get Brittain since learning about the site, is aware of that. "But when it comes down to it, someone owns that photograph, and it [Brittain's use] sure isn't fair use," Randazza said. In fact, he believes that copyright law "will probably be [Brittain's] downfall."

Photographs are automatically copyrighted by their "author," typically the person who took the photo, as soon as they are created. However, before a copyright infringement lawsuit can be filed, the owner of the photo has to register the work with the Copyright Office. That process can take a few months.

The burden of going through that process—and the wait involved—is what often pushes victims on IsAnybodyDown to just pay $250 to the "takedown lawyer" advertised on the site, Randazza said. Lots of people end up paying, despite the fact Randazza has offered to represent victims pro bono.

"I have heard from girls who said they paid him," Randazza told Ars today. "The problem is, if you pay him, how do you know he's going to dispose of your photographs, even if he promises he does? He was already impersonating a lawyer. Do you think he's not holding on to the pictures?"

Not everyone has been deterred, however.

"I can tell you, there are a number of people ready to file suit as soon as their copyright registration comes in the mail," Randazza said. "I told this guy I was coming for him, and I don't break my word."

A finding of copyright infringement could lead to huge damages against Brittain—up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement.

Some sites can claim a "safe harbor" from copyright litigation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) if they do certain things, like promptly respond to takedown notices. But a site like IsAnybodyDown, which doesn't even have a DMCA agent to contact about a takedown, is a long way from being able to claim that safe harbor.

In addition to pursuing the copyright angle, Randazza said he's working with two victims who say they were under 18 in photos that have been featured on IsAnybodyDown. If that's true, Brittain might be liable under child pornography laws, which could lead to even larger civil penalties or worse. "It's difficult to get law enforcement to care about a lot of things, but they get interested in child pornography cases," said Randazza.

For victims who didn't take their own photos, a tougher path

Many of the photos on the site are clearly owned by the women they are portraying—both victims who spoke to CBS4-Denver, for example, took the photos themselves.

But not all of those portrayed on these sites did take their own pictures. The term "revenge porn" originated because victims often suspect the pictures are put on such sites by jilted ex-lovers.

Copyright law allows for large damage awards and often for the collection of attorneys' fees. For a victim of "revenge porn" who didn't take the photo, however, it might be tougher to take legal action. Other laws that could conceivably be broken, like defamation or invasion of privacy, don't have the large damage awards that make filing a copyright suit attractive to lawyers. In addition, these sites may have a defense in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which prevents sites from being held liable for user-posted content.

Other lawyers appear willing to take a gamble that they can beat away any Section 230 defense as well. Two women who were featured against their will on a site called Texxxan.com filed a lawsuit last month alleging invasion of privacy.

However, those who don't own the copyright to their photos are at a disadvantage. Using something like a privacy claim or a right of publicity claim to go after a revenge porn entrepreneur is going to be more difficult, Randazza acknowledged. "They're a little harder, and they don't have the same sledgehammer effect [as copyright]," he said.

404 Reader Comments

Does Anonymous not have any teeth anymore? Where did all of the hacktivists go to? I'm not condoning extralegal activities, but I am saying that in this case there could be a greater good to be served by this man's webservers being taken down until a court can make it official.

You actually are condoning extralegal activities. Nothing Anonymous or hacktivists do is legal.

Quote:

Meanwhile, I don't think filing a DMCA complaint requires a work to be registered. Could Ars maybe put a link to a template for filing DMCA complaints up for people this jackass has victimized?

Only the copyright holder can file a DMCA takedown. You can't file for someone else.

Incorrect, an appointed third party can file a DMCA complaint on someone else's behalf (with their consent). In turn, I simply file a 'Good Faith' DMCA counter-complaint that says that the DMCA complaint is incorrect and improperly filed - my word versus theirs.

I'm not talking about an appointed third-party. I'm talking about the suggestion above to file improper DMCA takedown requests.

I'm siding with the 1st amendment... especially since this type of revenge site has been around since way back when don't date him girl went live.

It is the link to the takedown hammer site (which is also their DMCA contact) that moves it from "sleazy site" to "extortion". Without that, the worst that could happen would be a lawsuit over copyright infringement/DMCA takedown requests. Or you know, as some people point out, someone deciding to take justice into their own hands, though that is pretty unlikely. As-is though, its an extortion scheme.

But does it really qualify as extortion (in the legal sense) and if so why?

There are plenty of other ways to show trust though without feleling like they have to get naked or some guy they are with might elave them. That is called low self esteem.

What if they WANT to get naked pics with their boyfriends? Is that any business of ours? That doesn't entitle others who come in possession of the photos to post them publicly, in addition to contact details and other personal data concerning the person.

fferitt25 wrote:

So she's got a double-standard posing for nude photo sessions then turning around and mentoring kids. Gee. What else is she upto during her off time ?

I don't know the context, but are you saying it's a "double standard" to pose nude and mentor children? AFAIK it's not illegal to pose nude. Lots of people do it all the time. It *would* be a double standard if she does this publicly (e.g. for a magazine or website) and then objects to someone further disclosing the photos, namely to the parents of the children she takes care of. If that's the case, disregard this paragraph.

fferitt25 wrote:

Really - she wasn't sexually assualted and if she's worried about the photos getting back to the kiddies or their parents then why is she getting nude in front of a camera in the first place ? Seems a little hypocritical.

First off, WTF??? What's with the sexual assault comparison? I really have no idea where you were going with that, but what it sounds like is that you're saying you can only empathize if she's been sexually assaulted. What about harassment, stalking and all the other threats this site is facilitating? As for posing nude, see above. And if you still don't get it, instead of photos, think about this: you reveal some sort of embarrassing sexual fantasy to your partner, within the context of a trusting relationship. Would you be OK with your partner broadcasting your fetish out of spite? Or do you think lovers should keep such fantasies to themselves?

Gosh, here's a thought. Don't take compromising pictures of yourself that you wouldn't want the world to see. And certainly don't post them anywhere, or send them to anyone else via any means - electronically or in physical print form. And, don't let anyone else take compromising pictures of you either. This is just simple logic and common sense. I have NO sympathy for people who's salacious pictures (or videos) go forth into the land of the internet to come back and haunt them.

I fail to understand why so many people consider common sense to be a prerequisite for sympathy. You are supposed to feel sympathy to anyone who is in a position that you yourself would've considered unpleasant had it been you in their place. This is how sympathy works on a biological level, and is part of the reason why humans managed to form cooperative societies. I guess people like you (and Craig Brittain) is what we get when we cancel almost completely the impact of natural selection.

Gosh, here's a thought. Don't take compromising pictures of yourself that you wouldn't want the world to see. And certainly don't post them anywhere, or send them to anyone else via any means - electronically or in physical print form. And, don't let anyone else take compromising pictures of you either. This is just simple logic and common sense. I have NO sympathy for people who's salacious pictures (or videos) go forth into the land of the internet to come back and haunt them.

I fail to understand why so many people consider common sense to be a prerequisite for sympathy. You are supposed to feel sympathy to anyone who is in a position that you yourself would've considered unpleasant had it been you in their place. This is how sympathy works on a biological level, and is part of the reason why humans managed to form cooperative societies. I guess people like you (and Craig Brittain) is what we get when we cancel almost completely the impact of natural selection.

Or is lack of sympathy a natural human response to people doing stupid stuff that may have endangered the tribe...

If you do not want nude pictures of you online - do not pose nude in front of a digital camera of any kind. Morons.

Perhaps you need a car analogy to make it clearer to you?

The person who allows such photos to be taken is being foolish, as foolish as the person who runs across a motorway with cars going at 100km/h.The person who runs this website, and those who submit photos are the drivers who accelerate and steer towards the person running across the motorway.

The entire idea of using copyright to fight this sort of thing is beyond ridiculous. You can't enforce your copyrights unless you register. If you register, then anyone can look it up and request a copy for a small fee. And the US Copyright Office is going to be around a heck of a lot longer than some sleezy site. Plus it formally links you to an image, whereas a low rez pic on sleazy site can be claimed to be a photoshop job.

What if they WANT to get naked pics with their boyfriends? Is that any business of ours? That doesn't entitle others who come in possession of the photos to post them publicly, in addition to contact details and other personal data concerning the person.

Depends on the photographer... thus copyright law

daemonios wrote:

First off, WTF??? What's with the sexual assault comparison? I really have no idea where you were going with that, but what it sounds like is that you're saying you can only empathize if she's been sexually assaulted. What about harassment, stalking and all the other threats this site is facilitating? As for posing nude, see above. And if you still don't get it, instead of photos, think about this: you reveal some sort of embarrassing sexual fantasy to your partner, within the context of a trusting relationship. Would you be OK with your partner broadcasting your fetish out of spite? Or do you think lovers should keep such fantasies to themselves?

What someone doesn't want is not a sufficient condition for illegality. The saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" does NOT imply that said women serve default prison time!

Gosh, here's a thought. Don't take compromising pictures of yourself that you wouldn't want the world to see. And certainly don't post them anywhere, or send them to anyone else via any means - electronically or in physical print form. And, don't let anyone else take compromising pictures of you either. This is just simple logic and common sense. I have NO sympathy for people who's salacious pictures (or videos) go forth into the land of the internet to come back and haunt them.

I fail to understand why so many people consider common sense to be a prerequisite for sympathy. You are supposed to feel sympathy to anyone who is in a position that you yourself would've considered unpleasant had it been you in their place. This is how sympathy works on a biological level, and is part of the reason why humans managed to form cooperative societies. I guess people like you (and Craig Brittain) is what we get when we cancel almost completely the impact of natural selection.

Or is lack of sympathy a natural human response to people doing stupid stuff that may have endangered the tribe...

What if they WANT to get naked pics with their boyfriends? Is that any business of ours? That doesn't entitle others who come in possession of the photos to post them publicly, in addition to contact details and other personal data concerning the person.

Depends on the photographer... thus copyright law

daemonios wrote:

First off, WTF??? What's with the sexual assault comparison? I really have no idea where you were going with that, but what it sounds like is that you're saying you can only empathize if she's been sexually assaulted. What about harassment, stalking and all the other threats this site is facilitating? As for posing nude, see above. And if you still don't get it, instead of photos, think about this: you reveal some sort of embarrassing sexual fantasy to your partner, within the context of a trusting relationship. Would you be OK with your partner broadcasting your fetish out of spite? Or do you think lovers should keep such fantasies to themselves?

What someone doesn't want is not a sufficient condition for illegality. The saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" does imply that said women serve default prison time!

We obviously have very different world views. I'm just going to point out again (I've referenced it a few pages back) that in Portugal the Constitution grants us a right of privacy, including a protection of intimacy. Breaching that would be illegal in and of itself. Add the extortion part (and I've stated why I believe there can be extortion even if the use of the photos on the site is legal) and I really can't see how "freedom of speech" can trump the rights of unwilling participants. But hey, this IS the reality show generation... Everything's a reality show nowadays... *sigh*

If the US had proper data protection law (like the ones that exist in the EU), the site wouldn't even be able to exist.

I think what this site does best is exemplify why such law are a necessity (or point out how low humans are willing to stoop for a few bucks, but we already knew that).

Big Brother europe and it's CCTV's and lack of 1st amendment is not a situation to be envied.

Thing is, if there WERE a big brother in the EU, it would be a regulated one. Those CCTVs of which you speak have to operate within the bounds of the law, and there are rules regarding what purpose they can serve, how data can be stored and how long, etc.

Across the pond, you're crowdsourcing your own big brother. With no course for appeals, takedowns or whatever. Neighbour spying on neighbour (and uploading compromising photos to the cloud). What sounds more like 1984 to you?

The entire idea of using copyright to fight this sort of thing is beyond ridiculous. You can't enforce your copyrights unless you register.

This is false. You automatically have copyright on any photo that you take. However, if you register a photo, you can get legal fees and punitive damages on top of the actual damages. But in no way do you have to register the photo. Just prove that you took it. Any of the bathroom mirror type photos should be easy enough to prove by the women who took them.

Big Brother europe and it's CCTV's and lack of 1st amendment is not a situation to be envied.

Thing is, if there WERE a big brother in the EU, it would be a regulated one. Those CCTVs of which you speak have to operate within the bounds of the law, and there are rules regarding what purpose they can serve, how data can be stored and how long, etc.

Across the pond, you're crowdsourcing your own big brother. With no course for appeals, takedowns or whatever. Neighbour spying on neighbour (and uploading compromising photos to the cloud). What sounds more like 1984 to you?

Individual citizens using their decentralized technology within the guidelines of their 1st amendment rights is the opposite of 1984...unlike a government controlled eye with that same government making the regulations that they deem best.

We obviously have very different world views. I'm just going to point out again (I've referenced it a few pages back) that in Portugal the Constitution grants us a right of privacy, including a protection of intimacy. Breaching that would be illegal in and of itself. Add the extortion part (and I've stated why I believe there can be extortion even if the use of the photos on the site is legal) and I really can't see how "freedom of speech" can trump the rights of unwilling participants. But hey, this IS the reality show generation... Everything's a reality show nowadays... *sigh*

Not only do we have different world views, but also different Constitutions... and since his guy is in America....please look through the prism of the American constitution.

"Hey Mr. Rapist and Mr. Stalker and Mr. Pervert, here is this womans address so pay her a visit". How creepy and wrong does something have to be before someone is not allowed to explain it away as 'entertainment' or free speech? How on earth does this guys brain even work, he's just as creepy and wrong as the perverts who prey on people only he has a web site to do it.

You want to claim that one should look through the "prism of the American constitution" in considering this, well maybe then we should have looked through that same prism when we decided slavery was wrong, or hate speech was wrong, or sexual advances in the work place were wrong. When something is wrong its wrong, period, and this guy was wrong in putting up their names and addresses. I don't give a flying fart what people want to call it or how its claimed one should view it as free speech, its wrong.

I'm a little disturbed by the number of people advocating murdering this guy, or other violence. Are we really still that close to lynchings and vigilante activity? If what he's doing is illegal, take him down legally. All the not-so-veiled threats of murder are just as disgusting as what this guy does.

Otherwise it might just be you the mob decides they want dead next time.

Jeeze that guy is a scumbag. What he does is extortion plain and simple, even if technicalities of the law say otherwise.

As for people taking compromising photos of themselves...I think one of the big issues here is that this scumbag is not simply posting these photos, but also tying those photos to personally-identifiable information (names, addresses, phone numbers, Facebook accounts, etc). Without that information, those photos aren't that damning given plausible deniability: "Oh, that might look similar to me, but it's not me. I would never do anything like that."

I'm a little disturbed by the number of people advocating murdering this guy, or other violence. Are we really still that close to lynchings and vigilante activity? If what he's doing is illegal, take him down legally. All the not-so-veiled threats of murder are just as disgusting as what this guy does.

Otherwise it might just be you the mob decides they want dead next time.

While I agree with the feeling you express, you should note that most of those talking violence aren’t so much advocating his murder as pointing out that he is painting a giant target on his back, to which I agree.

Considering how fathers / husbands tend to react when their loved ones are put in danger, especially in a sexual way, it’s not such a leap of the imagination to think that someone might, one day, seek retribution.

Perceived threat to loved ones remains one of the most powerful rational for physical violence outside of criminal activity.

I'm a little disturbed by the number of people advocating murdering this guy, or other violence. Are we really still that close to lynchings and vigilante activity? If what he's doing is illegal, take him down legally. All the not-so-veiled threats of murder are just as disgusting as what this guy does.

Otherwise it might just be you the mob decides they want dead next time.

I remember the comment section of the last revenge porn related article devolving into little more than slut shaming and internet expert legalese, so I won't bother to keep too keenly abreast of what's spoken here. I will say, however, that as a journalist writing an article and not an editorial, objectiveness should be held to a more strict standard. Tossing in small snipes like calling Brittain's sleaze quote a 'gem' does nothing for the integrity of the article. The guy's shitty actions alone, presented objectively, would have any rational person draw the conclusion that he and his operation is a blight upon us all without needing to drive the mob with overt narrative.

I think there's practically no way to cover this issue where a reporter could not be accused of "driving the mob" with narrative, one way or the other.

Having said that, your point on the tone of that particular sentence is well taken. I deleted the word "gem" and left it at that.

It's interesting how many people only see the "taking nude pictures is dumb" stance without any idea why someone would do that (because that kind of trust is inconceivable?) and (apparently) no feeling that distributing such pictures might be wrong. Or using those pictures for extortion.

Not to mention the endorsment of illegal retribution.

In Germany, people have a right to their own picture, a site like IsAnybodyDown would be criminally liable for distributing these photos (if my interpretation is correct). Which basically boils down to the different approach to freedom of speech between the US and Germany that can be seen in the ban on swastikas etc.

All in all, this guy's a sleazebag, and I hope the site gets taken down for extortion, rather than copyright infringement.

I'm siding with the 1st amendment... especially since this type of revenge site has been around since way back when don't date him girl went live.

Understand the implications of your words.You are siding with the "right" to publish personal photos and information about people without their consent or regards for the consequences.Do you also believe in the right to publish medical records, credit card numbers, or email texts? Might as well just advocate spying on people's intimacy.

Two points you are missing when mentioning DontDateHimGirl:Two wrongs don't make a right - this isn't justifiable as a revenge for girls gossip.That site appears focused on the more or less positive purpose of exposing bad partners, venting and recovering. This one about revenge, blackmailing, misogynism, peeping, stalking. Can you think a single reason its existence is desirable?

It's interesting how many people only see the "taking nude pictures is dumb" stance without any idea why someone would do that (because that kind of trust is inconceivable?) and (apparently) no feeling that distributing such pictures might be wrong. Or using those pictures for extortion.

Not to mention the endorsment of illegal retribution.

In Germany, people have a right to their own picture, a site like IsAnybodyDown would be criminally liable for distributing these photos (if my interpretation is correct). Which basically boils down to the different approach to freedom of speech between the US and Germany that can be seen in the ban on swastikas etc.

All in all, this guy's a sleazebag, and I hope the site gets taken down for extortion, rather than copyright infringement.

Because none of us can think this guy is a sleazebag AND that taking nude pictures is dumb!

We obviously have very different world views. I'm just going to point out again (I've referenced it a few pages back) that in Portugal the Constitution grants us a right of privacy, including a protection of intimacy. Breaching that would be illegal in and of itself. Add the extortion part (and I've stated why I believe there can be extortion even if the use of the photos on the site is legal) and I really can't see how "freedom of speech" can trump the rights of unwilling participants. But hey, this IS the reality show generation... Everything's a reality show nowadays... *sigh*

i'm having a hard time understanding why you think the law in your country has any applicability in this situation, but please continue to express yourself uselessly. it's amusing to read.

Actually it does endanger the tribe. You just can't connect the dots.And Craig is not in your tribe nor mine. He is in a competing tribe.

What the hell are you even talking about?

Tribes. Have you not been following along?

I admit that I'm having trouble "connecting the dots" too on this. Care to explain? I get the "tribes", I just fail to see how taking nude photos of yourself for private consumption "endangers" it.

My guess is that he is either going to make his case by changing the scope of what he defines as "tribe" (ignoring that we are debating the morality of this, so "tribe" is our entire society), or make some pseudo moral argument against promiscuity.

I'm siding with the 1st amendment... especially since this type of revenge site has been around since way back when don't date him girl went live.

Understand the implications of your words.You are siding with the "right" to publish personal photos and information about people without their consent or regards for the consequences.Do you also believe in the right to publish medical records, credit card numbers, or email texts? Might as well just advocate spying on people's intimacy.

Two points you are missing when mentioning DontDateHimGirl:Two wrongs don't make a right - this isn't justifiable as a revenge for girls gossip.That site appears focused on the more or less positive purpose of exposing bad partners, venting and recovering. This one about revenge, blackmailing, misogynism, peeping, stalking. Can you think a single reason its existence is desirable?

1. Have you ever heard of facebook?2. These are photos, not medical records...have you ever heard of a medical record copyright?3. Learn the difference between justifying and illustrating a precedent/hyprocrisy4. Please don't spin the female equivalent of the site in question as morally superior. It's the same. And since you can't apply your revenge excuses fairly, I'll help. Of the all of the people on the "porn" site I'm sure one of them was a cheating wife who banged some guys' best friend and who pretended the kid was her mate's.

Thus the explicit photo.1. Exposes a bad partner.2. Allows said husband/cuckold to vent and recover.

So has someone Photoshopped this guy's face and submitted it to his own site, Grindr and any other bear dating sites out there with his name, location, phone number, social media profiles? Eye for an eye.

It's interesting how many people only see the "taking nude pictures is dumb" stance without any idea why someone would do that (because that kind of trust is inconceivable?) and (apparently) no feeling that distributing such pictures might be wrong. Or using those pictures for extortion.

Not to mention the endorsment of illegal retribution.

In Germany, people have a right to their own picture, a site like IsAnybodyDown would be criminally liable for distributing these photos (if my interpretation is correct). Which basically boils down to the different approach to freedom of speech between the US and Germany that can be seen in the ban on swastikas etc.

All in all, this guy's a sleazebag, and I hope the site gets taken down for extortion, rather than copyright infringement.

Because none of us can think this guy is a sleazebag AND that taking nude pictures is dumb!

Maybe misjudging your partner and his possible future actions is dumb - which would mean a large part of the world is dumb.

BUT. Anger against the sleazy is understandable and to an extent even beneficial.Hammering on people for being dumb shows a lack of sensibility and perspective.